0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Isn’t that conjectural? Is evidence available to show that a covalent or an ionic or any other kind of bond is under stress to separate? Bonds are bonds. Covalence even implies a cooperative bond, not a stressful attempt for the atoms to separate from their “love for each other”, does it not?
There is nothing there which says that the bonds are “under stress”.
The vibrations are always present, and it is those never-ending vibrations that I see as the actions that need 3rd Law balancing,
It is part of my theory, which is an invention in a thought process
gravity in an atom could not exert an (externally radiant) force at all
I am saying that it has no ability to do things like “control the tides”, because it is not acting outside of itself because an atom can not do this.
It is benign. It is inert. The only forces (pressures) are internal, canceling each other as a nucleic bond.
what has never been explained by any of the experts
I assume you mean that objects would float about inside either an open or a sealed ship “containing” a vacuum, as well as they would in a ship that has a pressurized atmosphere. I disagree.
within my theory
That makes it fair game for anybody to theorize about what’s going on in there.
Suppositions of “stress”, as applied across the entire periodic table, then “explained”, not from the example of a body-centered cubic lattice structure like a diamond (carbon) crystal, but from the perspective of “hydrogen bonding in water molecules”, is a pretty big span.
What makes your “stress” theory a valid theory, and my 3rd Law theory a “fantasy”?
you weigh much less on the top of Mt. Everest than at sea level
Another “doctored theory”.
“Nuclear Force is responsible for binding of protons and neutrons into atomic nuclei.”
An open orbit has the shape of a hyperbola (when the velocity is greater than the escape velocity), or a parabola (when the velocity is exactly the escape velocity). The bodies approach each other for "a while", curve around each other "around the time" of their closest approach, and "then" separate again forever. This may be the case with some comets if they come from outside the solar system.” (Wikipedia) That must be tough to calculate with so many of the factors remaining unknown.
I’m not “on” the floor, because I am weightless. There is just nothing to make me “move”, unless the ship shudders violently, or something like that, and I get “bumped” into the air by something.
Mine is all theory, just like most of “theirs”.
If you would like to isolate this exchange,
This is, I think, key to what I don't understand about your theory. If a body - let's say a solid lump of metal with no air bubbles in it, behaves the same (weightlessly) regardless of whether or not there is any air in the ship, then what role does the air play in giving us gravity in the first place? A similar question to meteors (or spacecraft) landing on the moon I suppose?
Ok. Fortified by agreeing on something, I would like to find common ground on your atmospheric theory.
Weightlessness becomes a pointless term. We need a new term. Would low gravity environment (LGE) and ultra low gravity environment (ULGE) be acceptable? If your ship was stationary in deep space it would be in an ULGE. Everything would still have its own gravity but the values would be so low that any effects would be negligible. I agree if you have got mass you wont have zero G..just ultra low G. How does all that sound?
I am less convinced by your atmosphere/gravity argument but would this Earth based experiment help prove anything:-
The atmosphere has weight, so as the object falls the atmospheric weight gets continuously heavier above it, increasing the rush of the object towards the ground
What do you set the scale upon, to weigh anything, when everything floats in the air, including the scale?
I also did say, in the very first message in my theory, “When something falls through the atmosphere, and/or through the water, the fall (or sink) velocity increases at a rate that is globally uniform. It seems like there should be something besides mass/ weight/magnetism that would account for the global uniformity of rates of falling speed. Is it not more logical, that a reliable factor like overhead atmospheric pressure would be the influential factor? Acceleration by overhead and gradually increasing downward (pushing) pressure seems like a far more responsible agent of rising velocity.”
If the ship could stop falling and remain motionless in the vacuum by firing a powerful set of retro-engines, do you suppose that everybody would crash down to the floor? Not a chance.
mass is non-scalable in the vacuum